If you don't use stats to base your opinions, how do you decide if a civ is OP, or needs buffs/nerfs?I mentioned the stats +1900 not to show you if Vietnamese bad or no, but to show you how the stats are dumb. According to stats then we should buff Britons, Gurjaars, Chinese, Burgundians and even Aztecs and also nerf Celts and even Goths.
There was no reason at all to buff a civ like Vietnamese or even Byzantienes and Hindustanis. I just want to know on which references the devs rely on to buff/nerf civs. There was also no nerfs to Mesos nor Byz, Berbers, Huns, Vikings, etc..which all of them are insanely strong also.
Presumably, the devs have access to stats for a whole host of different levels and can make informed decisions.
Also, we should not only be looking at 1900+ stats as that is such a tiny portion of the player base as to be almost irrelevant. If something is balanced (or underpowered) for 1% of the player base, but has a 60%+ win rate for the other 99%, does that not deserve a nerf? The devs need to look after the health of the entire game, not just the pros.
Example: Franks are fairly balanced at the pro level, but are pretty busted at 1200- and so warrant a small nerf.